4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Białystok.
5.  On 15 May 1995 the Białystok District Court ruled that J.C. was to pay the applicant the sum of 2,977 Polish zlotys (PLN), plus statutory interest from 23 August 1994. On 5 July 1995 the District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the judgment.
6.  On 16 October 1995 the applicant asked the bailiff of the District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) to institute enforcement proceedings.
7.  Between October 1995 and April 1996 the bailiff of the Białystok District Court made several unsuccessful attempts to recover the debt. As it was impossible to recover the debt, on 30 September 1996 the bailiff initiated proceedings for possession of J.C.’s apartment.
8.  On 29 December 1998 the applicant (at the bailiff’s request) paid an advance on the fees payable to the expert responsible for valuing J.C.’s apartment.
9.  The bailiff set the date for the valuation of the apartment for 15 January 1999. However, the valuation was not done until 15 July 1999.
10.  In June and August 2000 the applicant submitted requests for an auction of J.C.’s apartment to be held. However, the bailiff failed to reply to the applicant’s requests.
11.  On 29 November 2000 the applicant again requested the bailiff to schedule a date for the first auction.
12.  In reply to the request, on 6 June 2001, the bailiff requested from the applicant an advance on payment for the auction. On 9 July 2001 the bailiff stayed the proceedings because of the applicant’s failure to pay. After the amount due was paid, the bailiff reopened the proceedings on 16 August 2001.
13.  On 18 September 2001 the bailiff informed the applicant that J.C.’s apartment was being auctioned.
14.  On 16 October 2002 the bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been ineffective. The co-owner of the apartment was J.C.’s husband.
15.  On 6 November 2002 the applicant requested the court to issue a writ of execution in respect of J.C.’s husband. On 7 November 2002 the bailiff stayed the proceedings.
16.  On 10 March 2003 the applicant requested the proceedings to be resumed. On 23 April 2003 the bailiff granted the request. The bailiff noted that the apartment’s co-owner, J.C’s. husband, was abroad and requested that a guardian be appointed for him.
17.  On 11 August 2004 the bailiff requested a further valuation of the apartment. The expert informed the applicant and the bailiff that it had not been possible to enter the apartment to carry out the valuation.
18.  On 29 October 2004 the bailiff requested that someone other than J.C. be named in the administration of the property.
19.  On 25 July 2006 the applicant sold the debt.
20.  The applicant filed a complaint with the Białystok Regional Court, alleging that there had been a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. He relied on the provisions of the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004. Under section 3 of the 2004 Act a complaint can be lodged during enforcement proceedings.
21.  On 27 May 2005 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of its entry into force. The court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings as a whole and found periods of inactivity on the part of the bailiff of the District Court, especially prior to the year 2001. However, it also found that at the time of entry into force of the 2004 Act and after that date there had been no inactivity or undue delays on the part of the authorities. In that connection, the court held that there had been no breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time after 17 September 2004.
22.  On 6 February 2003 the Białystok District Court convicted the applicant of taking profits from prostitution and engaging in acts of mental and physical cruelty towards a prostitute. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed. The applicant stressed that he had been deprived of any opportunity to challenge the statements made by the injured prostitute, O.J., before the prosecutor or to cross-examine her. He also maintained that the authorities had made no real attempt to produce her as a witness before the court.
23.  On 20 January 2004 the Białystok Regional Court upheld the impugned judgment, recognising the period spent in custody as time spent serving the sentence. It held that the alleged breach of the applicant’s procedural rights could not be sustained. The court relied on the impossibility of finding the witness and stressed the Regional Court’s attempts to find her address in Belorussia. Moreover, the court referred to the significant number of witnesses heard during the trial and found that the applicant’s conviction had not been based solely on O.J.’s statements given in the investigation phase of the proceedings.
24.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 5 May 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal at a session held in camera without giving written reasons.
25.  On 8 February 2006 the applicant requested from the Białystok District Court copies of the records produced in his case. The copies were delivered on 24 October 2006. On 8 September 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Białystok Regional Court, alleging that there had been a a breach of his right to² a trial within a reasonable time under the 2004 Act. On 24 October 2006 the court declined to rule on the complaint holding that the 2004 Act could not be applicable because there were no proceedings pending.